Today’s meme: Obama’s too passive and disinterested to have had a direct role in these scandals

posted at 11:21 am on May 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

I had the same thought as Matt Lewis when reading through the news this morning. There’s too much smoke now from the IRS, DOJ/AP, and Benghazi scandals to pretend there’s no fire. If you’re sympathetic to O, it’s time to shift messages from “what fire?” to “Obama should have done more to put out these fires set by other people,” which conveniently leaves Bambi in the virtuous role of firefighter. It’s a classic plea bargain: He’s guilty of negligence, maybe, but of nothing more serious. Lewis:

The media is helping. Obama isn’t a bad guy, he’s merely out of the loop, we’re told. He is “President Passerby,” as Dana Milbank calls him. And besides, as David Axlerod said this morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” government is just so vast that nobody can really know what’s going on (as one of my Twitter followers noted, why didn’t Bush think of that to explain Abu Ghraib away?)…

Being out of the loop doesn’t exonerate him in my mind (though it might in the public’s.) The buck is supposed to stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — and it makes little difference to me whether you order — or inspire (and tolerate) — a culture of corruption where “Chicago-style” politics are carried out with a wink and a nod.

But people are more forgiving of a bumbling leader than of a corrupt politician. And staffers and bureaucrats can always be dispatched.

Yes, Axelrod really said that, but let’s save that for another post. Lewis is right that Milbank’s piece on the “passive president” is the big one in this vein this morning, but the meme is popping up elsewhere. Here’s his old pal Gibbsy:

Gibbs said the White House should have immediately proposed a bipartisan panel of former IRS commissioners to investigate, and criticized the administration’s response as “exceedingly passive.”

“I think they would have a much better way of talking about this story rather than simply kind of landing on the, ‘well if this happened, then we’ll look at it’,” Gibbs said. “It sounds exceedingly passive to me.”

Saying that Obama has been passive this week in reacting to the IRS scandal overlooks the fact that, by Carney’s own admission, people in the White House must have been aware that tea-party groups were complaining of unfair treatment last year. Did anyone pick up the phone to inquire, or were they content not to know in case it was true?

Experts and former officials say the White House’s laissez-faire approach to the Justice Department — adopted in part as a response to the politicization there under President George W. Bush — allowed prosecutors’ naturally aggressive tendencies to burst through unchecked…

”This White House, out of concern to distance itself from what was seen as excess politicization of DOJ by the Bush administration, had not engaged DOJ at all on leak cases,” said Columbia University law professor David Pozen, who spent several months conducting a major review of the federal government’s love-hate relationship with national security leaks. ”

In previous White Houses, even those railed publicly against leaks, officials sent “cautionary signals to the Justice Department … urging restraint and sensitivity to political, policy and constitutional concerns,” Pozen said. But the administration’s distancing policy, said Pozen, meant that prosecutors were “being given more leash than they had previously to do what they do.”

That was part of Carney’s defense yesterday vis-a-vis the IRS too. The White House had to maintain “distance” from the agency, he said, in order to eliminate any risk of “politicization,” which stands reality on its head insofar as the IRS was apparently already politicized. Maintaining distance simply enabled it. If this is seriously their defense to malfeasance in the executive branch, that they can’t meddle to try to stop it for fear of somehow tainting the malfeasor with politics, then there’s really no limit to what their underlings can get away with. And if that’s the case, that they’re deliberately keeping their distance from bad actors below them, then what’s the difference between “passivity” or “disinterest” and intentionally looking the other way? The cornerstone of Obama’s public persona since day one has been his “above the fray” adult-in-the-room shtick; almost without fail, if there’s an attack to be launched on his ideological opponents, it’s tasked to some surrogate in order to keep O’s hands clean. That’s not “passivity,” it’s a deliberate strategy to inoculate himself from “politics as usual” in order to protect his brand as some sort of genteel, post-partisan non-politician. So why give him the benefit of the doubt now? If he really didn’t know all of this was going on, why not assume that that’s because his staff is instructed to keep stuff like this away from him? And if that’s true, what’s the difference between “negligence” and intent?

Here’s Chris Matthews lamenting that Obama doesn’t seem to have his hands on the wheel of the ship of state. That’s fine; the important question is why. Is it because, as the press so often claimed about Bush, he’s “incurious” about what his underlings are doing? Or is it because the people steering know what direction he wants to go in?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

If no one gets fired, thrown in jail or impeached than ill settle for this president and his minions to have a miserable next three and half years. This way they won’t be able to impose their tyranny over the rest of us.

I don’t know why anyone would be surprised that Obama is a “Know Nothing” president. He has spent his whole life knowing nothing and doing little except campaigning and self-promotion.

This is the guy who floated through Columbia University without leaving a mark. This is the guy who got elected president of the Harvard Law Review without publishing anything. This is the guy who voted “present” over and over again as a state senator.

This is the guy who sat in a pew at Trinity United every week for twenty years but never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright say anything controversial. This is the guy who didn’t know that Tony Rezko was a crook or that his own constituents were freezing in Rezko’s unheated slums. This is the guy who didn’t know that Bill Ayers was an unrepentant terrorist.

This is the guy who as a US senator spent all his time running for president. This is the guy who didn’t know about any of the nasty things his campaign was doing. This is the guy who every time the shit hits the fan claims he didn’t know and wasn’t involved.

Well if this is the case, bho needs to resign and give joe a chance to see if he could get involved governing? I know, this will never happen but bho is so out of touch with his job as president something needs to be done? I should add joe is horrible, but is he as horrible as bho?
L

Beck was interviewing Rumsfeld this morning. Rumsfeld says there’s no way Obama couldn’t have known about the AP phone records seizure. Reportedly it was done to plug a serious urgent national security leak, and if so, any president would (or should) have been giving the orders on that.

It’s funny in a way that Obama is actually doing all these things that the left was imagining Bush doing.

Does anyone believe there will be serious consequence for the Dems from these various scandals?

happytobehere on May 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

The serious consequences are already being felt and I think that these bombs are being dropped on him to try and save the Senate next year. If the Dems can sully Obama sufficiently then they can claim (albeit weakly) that the Obamacare implementation disaster is entirely his fault. Make no mistake, when Americans get the first bill toward the end of the year there will be hell to pay and they know it. Having said that, I think that there are too many things hitting him right now for this not to be coordinated.

Did President Barack Husein Obama even get an outline of what his job as “President…. of the United States of America” and the duties that he was responsible for entailed?

Would there have ever been another President in any other period of time and/or party affiliation that would get a pass on virtually every single irresponsible action(s) by his administration, and underlings that report to him?

In every single case…. HE KNOWS NOTHING…..He’s going to has SOMEONE look into it! I DON’T believe him, HE KNOWS NOTHING…. His party is doing his bidding, they KNOW exactly what they are doing, they have orders… HIS orders, and they are taking over our country one ROGUE government agency at a time!

Make no mistake, when Americans get the first bill toward the end of the year there will be hell to pay and they know it.
volnation on May 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Umm, you mean Republicans are going to be mad about paying for Obamacare? They’re already mad about it. You don’t actually think that the electorate gets mad about “paying” for things, right? The electorate doesn’t actually pay, Republicans do.

All the scandals do is anger Republicans. And Republicans being angry got us Obamacare and Obama being elected twice.

Here’s Chris Matthews lamenting that Obama doesn’t seem to have his hands on the wheel of the ship of state.

About a year ago, I remember being on the phone with my mum when she asked how the political atmosphere felt on this side of the pond. I told her that I felt like we were on a bus that was careening at 100mph toward a cliff, the massive driver had had a massive heart attack, was slumped over the wheel, and we could not get him out of the seat. Only those in the back, singing ’99 Bottle of Beer on the Wall,’ were oblivious to the coming catastrophe that those paying attention could so clearly see.

Of course, I ended it with the old Will Rogers quip: ‘When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep…Not screaming like all the passengers in his car.’

lol

But, seriously, do Obama supporters realise that they are pleading incompetence, which is what we have been saying all along? The dude has never run so much as a lemonade stand.

BTW: Where are the photographs of Obama on the night of Benghazi? We’ve seen Obama in the Situation Room when Osama bin Laden was killed. We’ve seen the moment that he was told about Newtown. We’ve seen him shooting skeet bruising the hell out of his shoulder. We’ve seen him trapped in a spider web. We’ve seen him meeting with a pirate in the Oval Office. We’ve seen him praying in the Oval Office after the Boston bombing.

Where are the photos of him on the night of Benghazi? Do they not exist because the official WH photog doesn’t take photos of the President while he is asleep? And, if so, what does that say about the Commander-in-Chief, who knew the first Ambassador in more than 3 decades was missing?

The cornerstone of Obama’s public persona since day one has been his “above the fray” adult-in-the-room shtick; almost without fail, if there’s an attack to be launched on his ideological opponents, it’s tasked to some surrogate in order to keep O’s hands clean.

The reality is that Obama has been a demagogue. He’s about as clean as a bowel movement.

Too busy drinking that slurpee to have anything to do with us driving deeper into the ditch. I’m sure that’s exactly the kind of president they wanted elected, right? Sure… that’ll play well with everyone.

Does anyone believe there will be serious consequence for the Dems from these various scandals?

happytobehere on May 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

There could be at the ballot box. Nothing unites conservatives like the idea that they’re being targeted by the left. And it’s usually the mere perception that they’re attacking us that provides motivation. Imagine how we’ll react in 2014 when it’s actually happening for real courtesy of the IRS.

Obama really doesn’t know a lot. He’s narcissistic and lazy,and he is reported to spend a lot of time locked in his study smoking and watching sports. Valerie Jarrett is running the show. If people cared, or were made aware by the press (hahahahahaha) there would be an outcry to get her evil, unelected a@@ out of DC. But I think Obama would go under the bus before she did. Who is she and why is she there? I think she makes the Clintons look as pure as the driven snow.

There could be at the ballot box. Nothing unites conservatives like the idea that they’re being targeted by the left. And it’s usually the mere perception that they’re attacking us that provides motivation. Imagine how we’ll react in 2014 when it’s actually happening for real courtesy of the IRS.

Doughboy on May 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

There’s the possibility of a national campaign based on this theme that could be absolutely devastating to the Ds. It could lock them out of the House and Senate for years.

The only problem is that the Rs are the ones campaigning against them. They aren’t called the Stupid Party for nothin’.

” In the midst of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal, individuals and groups, alike, are continuing to come forward with ever-startling allegations. On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told TheBlaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.

According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”

It all started with a phone call she received at her home in May of that year — a call during which Hendershott was told she would be audited. A letter that followed on May 19, 2010 solidified the IRS’s request to meet her in person two months alter in July. While IRS investigations are certainly not uncommon occurrences, the professor believes that the situation surrounding hers was more-than-curious.

“The IRS calls my house and says … ‘I just wanted to let you know that we’re going to be auditing your business’ and I said ‘My businesses?’ and he said, ‘You know the expenses you take off for writing,” the academic recalls.

Hendershott was surprised she was being audited on business grounds considering she does not operate an entrepreneurial endeavor in the traditional sense. In addition to her academic work, she told TheBlaze that she occasionally freelances for Catholic outlets and for the Wall Street Journal. But can this really be considered “business” activity?

“I don’t make a lot of money from writing. In fact most years I don’t show a profit,” she told TheBlaze.

In fact, Hendershott said some of the outlets and organizations she has written for haven’t paid her a cent.

But the circumstances surrounding the irregular nature of the experience don’t end there, though. Hendershott noted it was particularly surprising that she, alone, was audited. Her husband, who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income, was not included in the IRS’s inquiry — even though the Hendershotts always files jointly.

So when the agent explained that she would need to come alone and in person to discuss her “business” activity in July of 2010, the professor was perplexed.

“[The IRS agent] didn’t even let me decide when it would be good for me … He didn’t want my husband to come,” she said of the meeting, which was held at an IRS office in New Haven, Connecticut.

The process was a grueling one, including many questions that Hendershott felt were political in nature. Numerous records were requested before the in-person meeting, as well as during and after.

“Every question had to do with bank deposits we made. Every single question,” she said. “What is this money? And I didn’t know a lot of it. We had to go to our bank and get deposits back. We had to get records showing where the money came from.”

While asking about the deposits, the agent wanted to know if the monies came from groups and, if so, what the organizations’ politics were.

The mention of groups, Hendershott notes, is particularly interesting, as she had been writing for numerous Catholic outlets and organizations at the time. In addition to Catholic World Report and the Catholic Advocate, she also penned op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. Many of these writings were critical of President Barack Obama and his policies.

And the plot thickens. Among the organizations she targeted in her writings were progressive groups highly supportive of Democratic causes, including: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United, and Catholic Democrats.

At the time, one of the founders of Catholics United, Chris Korzen, had become a target of her work, as she exposed, in her view, his true leftist agenda and some of the complicated theological stances the left-of-center organizations he associated with were taking. Plus, there were alleged financial ties with billionaire liberal George Soros. Here’s just two paragraphs from an article she wrote in March 2010, just months before her meeting with IRS officials:

On its website, Catholics United describes itself as a 501(c) (4) non-profit organization—eligible to accept donations. But, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good emerged in 2005 as a kind of sister organization to Catholics United. A 501(c) (3) organization, donors can claim a deduction against personal income tax when they donate money to Catholics in Alliance. Reviewing the 2007 IRS 990 forms for both Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United raises some questions, because Chris Korzen is listed as having received $84,821 in compensation for 40 hours per week from Catholics in Alliance on the group’s 990 Form—even though the Catholics United website claimed he was the director there during the same time period. [...]

Despite their inability to engage in extensive lobbying, Catholics in Alliance has been extremely successful in attracting large donors. Never a friend to the Catholic Church, George Soros, one of the earliest donors, contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2005 and another $100,000 in 2006 through his Open Society Institute. Likewise, Smith Bagley, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser, whose wife, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, is Chairman of the Board of Catholics in Alliance, came close to matching Soros with grants from his family’s Arca Foundation. With a long history of supporting progressive organizations like ACORN, the Gamaliel Foundation, People for the American Way, and Planned Parenthood, Arca contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2007 and another $75,000 in 2008.

“I started writing articles like crazy saying these are fake Catholic groups,” she said of the aforementioned organizations, noting that Korzen would often target her work and rail against her assertions.

Hendershott noted that the progressive leader once called into a radio show she appeared on to challenge her contention that he had accepted Soros money.

“I had the tax return in front of me and read off the amounts that Chris Korzen was getting paid from Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good — a Soros supported fake Catholic group,” she told TheBlaze, noting that, through Catholics in Alliance, he had received $85,000.

While Korzen denied this on the air, Hendershott read from the 990 form in an effort to prove he wasn’t telling the truth. This, she believes, may have sparked — or played a role — in spawning the IRS audit.

“He was getting paid by one organization and working for another,” the professor said of Korzen. “The IRS should have gone after them.”

Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her. If her suspicions are true, this may have been its chilling intention.

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared,” she said (records show her last article for the organization was on July 10, 2010 — the same month the IRS audit unfolded)….”

There could be at the ballot box. Nothing unites conservatives like the idea that they’re being targeted by the left. And it’s usually the mere perception that they’re attacking us that provides motivation. Imagine how we’ll react in 2014 when it’s actually happening for real courtesy of the IRS.

Doughboy on May 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, all that religious liberty stuff really united us in 2012. We totally took it to the Dems!

/

We simply don’t have the numbers. The electorate is made up of vast swaths of complete idiots that vote Dem no matter what. All these cute scandals don’t make a dent in the low-information (Read: Democrat) voter. These scandals do not help us make inroads for the female vote, or the Hispanic or Asian or African-American vote.

“Today’s meme: Obama’s too passive and disinterested to have had a direct role in these scandals” – translation – “We’re going to continue to run interference for him for a few days while his fingerprints are wiped clean.”

Where are the photos of him on the night of Benghazi? Do they not exist because the official WH photog doesn’t take photos of the President while he is asleep? And, if so, what does that say about the Commander-in-Chief, who knew the first Ambassador in more than 3 decades was missing?

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

You are making a faulty assumption, that Obama knew what was going on that night at all. He had a big campaign event coming up the next day in Vegas and needed his sleep. You really think anyone woke him up? I don’t.

He’s an incompetent who is good only at giving speeches and sounding smart. There were smarter people put in place in the White House and the agencies to handle the heavy lifting so he wouldn’t have to. It would have been pointless to wake him up because he is useless in a crisis. This was all managed by Tom Donilon, including the talking points, if anyone will just connect the dots.

I do not have the slightest doubt that Obama had no idea of anything going on at DOJ. That was Eric Holder’s job, to do the heavy lifting there.

None of this will be pinned directly on Obama, because he is far too incompetent to have been trusted with the knowledge of any of it. The ideological direction of the Administration was set early on by Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel, and it was up to the staff to carry it out.

Today’s meme: Obama’s too passive and disinterested to have had a direct role in these scandals

Then why is he remaining in the presidency?

He’s been elected to be the chief executive, in charge of and ultimately responsible for all of the operations of the executive branch of the federal government, and commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

If, as Axelrod and others contend, the position for which he campaigned and which he promised the American people he was not only competent to perform, but anxious to be reelected to perform, is ‘too vast’ for him and beyond his ability, he should immediately resign.

Obama is responsible for every aspect and action, including failure or inaction, of the executive branch, not least because he appointed and/or approved all those who head the many agencies and departments under his direct oversight, as well as a plethora of ‘advisers’. As chief executive, head of the executive branch, this is the function of the president.

Obama knew the requirements of the job having just finished a four year term as president. IF he now wishes to contend that the job is beyond him… he should RESIGN.

Oh please! Obama is not going to be impeached. The Limbaugh Theorem has been their meme the whole time, it works just fine for the Dems. It will keep working.

You don’t need “good luck” when you have an electorate as stupid as ours.

happytobehere on May 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The catch with the Limbaugh Theorem is that the President can’t cross the line from being a detached observer to being an incompetent know nothing who’s presiding over a government completely out of control(particularly the IRS). I think most low information morons will be content to keep giving him a pass on the economy and jobs since they’re too cowardly to ever blame him instead of Bush or the GOP. But he won’t find too many sympathetic Americans who are cool with him sitting back while the IRS goes after people who disagree with him ideologically and the DOJ taps the phones of reporters.

Obama really doesn’t know a lot. He’s narcissistic and lazy,and he is reported to spend a lot of time locked in his study smoking and watching sports. Valerie Jarrett is running the show. If people cared, or were made aware by the press (hahahahahaha) there would be an outcry to get her evil, unelected a@@ out of DC. But I think Obama would go under the bus before she did. Who is she and why is she there? I think she makes the Clintons look as pure as the driven snow.

Boudica on May 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

This.

Someone sends BO out to do the only thing he can do – run his mouth and campaign. Mommy Val pulls his strings, and he dances. Nasty piece of work, that Val.

None of these scandals are his fault, if you ask the president. Benghazi, the IRS, the DOJ…if you ask him, he will either tell you that this is the first he is hearing of the matter, or, in the case of Benghazi, “There is no there, there.”

The problem with his reaction to these scandals is…He’s the President of the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. He is responsible for the safety of and security for millions of lives.

And, now, he is going to tell us that he does not know what is going on in the very United States Government he is supposed to be the President of?

He is either extremely incompetent, extremely stupid, or extremely lazy (Yeah, I said it.).

Passive and disinterested? Then what is he doing as President of the United States? What does he thing this is — a court for midnight basketball? (which he is, obviously, too milquetoast to play well, anyway)

The more the LSM try to defend him and make excuses, the more their own words tell us he shouldn’t be president in the first place; they give us every reason to further believe he should resign.

This drivel makes me genuinely angry, and I’m not quick to anger.

I sure hope the Navy is keeping an eye out for massive invasion forces from Russia and/or China, because if they have any plans to attack, now would be a good time.

Love that “the smartest men in the history of mankind are claiming “incompetence” in order to deflect their criminal behavior. Let’s put in Joe Biden and get a professionally incompetent leader-I say.
Two weeks into his presidency, he’ll be awarded the “incompetent” prize for peace of something.

We simply don’t have the numbers. The electorate is made up of vast swaths of complete idiots that vote Dem no matter what. All these cute scandals don’t make a dent in the low-information (Read: Democrat) voter. These scandals do not help us make inroads for the female vote, or the Hispanic or Asian or African-American vote.

“White male Republicans” are mad, sure. They were mad in 2012 too.

happytobehere on May 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

We DO have the numbers. We just didn’t go to the polls in 2012. That’s why we lost. Too many conservatives were dissatisfied with Romney and the GOP as a whole(can’t blame em, of course), so they stayed home. If that can be remedied in 2014, the Dems will get smoked.

Oh please! Obama is not going to be impeached. The Limbaugh Theorem has been their meme the whole time, it works just fine for the Dems. It will keep working.

You don’t need “good luck” when you have an electorate as stupid as ours.

happytobehere on May 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I don’t have to have Obama impeached and removed. Having him politically helpless, flailing around and worthless, dragging the rest of the Dimocrat party down into political oblivion with him for the next 3 years would be fine with me as well.

But he won’t find too many sympathetic Americans who are cool with him sitting back while the IRS goes after people who disagree with him ideologically and the DOJ taps the phones of reporters.

Doughboy on May 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Why would Americans who aren’t Republicans care if Republicans are being targeted by the IRS? As far as the DOJ phone tapping, that’s to save the American people from terrorism, easily explained away to the low-info Dem voter.